Saturday, June 26, 2010

Introduction of members

Laura Snyder (RUSA, Chair) opened the meeting by asking Committee members, representatives, and liaisons to introduce themselves. A Committee roster was passed around the table; and all were asked to “check in” and to annotate their entries with any corrections.

Approval of minutes from MARBI's January 2010 meetings

Laura Snyder (RUSA, Chair) asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of the ALA Midwinter 2010 meeting in Boston. Being none, Renette Davis (ALCTS) moved to accept the minutes; Gary Strawn (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.

Proposal No. 2010-06: Encoding the International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats

The proposal was presented by Corine Deliot (BL). She noted that the ISNI in subfield $0 must identify the entity as presented in the entire heading. Sherman Clarke (VRA) wondered about the use of subfield $0 in a 100 field when there is a 240 uniform title present. Stephen Hearn (SAC) clarified that, when relating bibliographic headings to authority records, the 100 field can stand alone and, as such, an ISNI would not interfere with the mapping of a 100-240 combination to a 100 field with a subfield $t in an authority record. However, an ISNI could not be added to a 700 name-title entry.

On a related topic, Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) wondered about whether URIs can be similarly added to such headings. The Committee felt that this question was out of scope for this proposal, but that it was a topic worthy of future discussion. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) cautioned that the subfield $0 should not be used in the 1XX block of the Authority format, because the information is conveyed in field 024. He moved to accept the proposal with an amendment to clarify this limitation; Amber Meryman (RUSA) seconded. The proposal passed.

The proposal was presented by Rebecca Guenther (LC). Elizabeth Mangan (Library of Congress, retired) made some comments about the included examples. Her conversations with programmers 5 years ago led her to conclude that such a subfield is unnecessary, since most systems are able to recognize the type of encoding scheme from the data itself. But she feels that it wouldn’t hurt to also note the scheme. She pointed out that decimal degrees were of variable length after the point and this needs to be showin in examples; thus the use of zeros in unused positions following the decimal point is not necessary. Rebecca Guenther (LC) clarified that only the digits before the point need to be right justified. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) asked whether military grid systems could be coded in this way and whether they should be included in this proposal. Rebecca Guenther (LC) responded that there was no need to include any other schemes at this time.

Gary Strawn (ALCTS) questioned, if this data is self-identifying, is the addition of the subfield $7 necessary. Perhaps it could be used for validation based upon the length of the data. Not sensing any enthusiasm from the Committee, he moved that the proposal be rejected; Joe Altimus (LITA) seconded. George Prager (AALL) expressed concern that the authors of the proposal were not present to advocate for it. John Myers (Union College) felt that the proposal would only be workable if data across all schemes were to be coded uniquely to each scheme. Rebecca Guenther (LC) offered to investigate and bring the proposal back if it was still considered to be necessary. The motion passed and the proposal was rejected.

Proposal No. 2010-09: Addition of Subfield $u to Field 561 (Ownership and Custodial History) to the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats

The proposal was presented by Richard Greene (OCLC). Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to approve the proposal; Joe Altimus (LITA) seconded. It was noted that the subfield $u would need to be repeatable and repeatability had been left out of the proposal. Sherman Clarke (VRA) pointed out that the sequencing of this subfield would also be important for context. John Myers (Union College) suggested that field 541 might need a similar subfield code. The proposal was approved with the subfield indicated as repeatable.

The discussion paper was presented by Kelley McGrath (Ball State University). She proposed that the definition of subfield $j needs to be broadened to include spoken, sung, and signed languages. The definition of subfield $a also needs to be narrowed to specify only oral languages for moving image materials so that the language of silent films would be coded as “zxx”. Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) pointed out that subfield $a is not mandatory in field 041; so such a change would be unnecessary. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) commented that the scope of the new zxx needs to be fully stated rather than indicating with an ellipsis that example 4) is carried into the new definition without change. In referring to the last sentence of the subfield $j proposal, Joe Altimus (LITA) asked whether the codes are to be alphabetized by their code or name. Kelley McGrath (Ball State University) stated that this requirement for alphabetization could be removed from the eventual proposal.

Currently there is not a way to code the original language of a work if it is not included in the manifestation in hand. It was noted that the language coded in subfield $h can often be ambiguous. Three potential solutions have been suggested. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) expressed concern about example 3.4, which is of a work that does not exist in translation. Kelley McGrath (Ball State University) was not concerned about the possible redundancy of information, which might make indexing more straight-forward. John Attig (Penn State University) argued that this information already exists in the indicator values. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) suggested that this example could be stricken. Bruce Evans (MLA) clarified that the position of the subfield $h should be used to determine its context and relationship to the other languages coded above it. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) asked about the coding of intertitle languages. Kelley McGrath (Ball State University) responded that this is exactly why the paper is trying to clarify the differences in treatment between oral and written languages in films. Vicki Sipe (ALCTS) wondered whether we should consider creating one or more subfields that would be applied only to moving images. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) wondered about using a repeatable 041 for materials specified (as identified in respective $3 subfields). Kelley McGrath (Ball State University) clarified that the changes being requested apply only to moving images, not to all visual materials.

Sally McCallum (LC) clarified that the first part of the discussion paper would require only editorial changes to the documentation. But John Attig (Penn State University) thought that the issues raised were too numerous and, as the implications of the proposed changes went way beyond moving images materials, that the paper should be brought back for further discussion. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) felt that the issues raised in the first part of the discussion paper could be resolved via email.

Regarding the three options for coding the original language, Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) asked about using field 041 in the authority record for the original work. However, the 041 field has not yet been approved in the Authority format. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) suggested using a separate 041 field (in the bibliographic record) for all of the original languages of the various parts of the item (film, libretto, text on packaging, etc.). Elizabeth Plantz (NLM), Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland), and Sherman Clarke (New York University, retired) shared their concerns about the complexities of coding the languages of entire works and their multiple components. Language coding for music is also complex and needs to be taken into consideration. A straw poll determined that there were not strong feelings one way or the other about whether the discussion paper should be brought forward as a proposal. Rebecca Guenther (LC) reminded the Committee that language notes can disambiguate such confusion. But John Attig (Penn State University) wondered, in the case of searching by language, whether we are not trying to ask too much of one field. The discussion paper will go back to OLAC for more examination.

Reports

Sally McCallum (LC) reported that the source codes and value lists have been reorganized and annotated for more ease of use. The printing of MARC documentation will be gradually scaled back, now that the online full and concise are well established, beginning with the non-printing of the Classification and Community Information formats, following consultation with the user community. And MODS schema version 3.4 has been published.

With regard to the Library of Congress’ announcement that they will be splitting form-genre headings away from subject headings, John Attig (Penn State University) cautioned the Committee members to be in close communication with their system vendors. Jay Weitz (OCLC) asked about the most-recent MARC update, particularly about whether it is a new trend to issue these in February, rather than in October. Sally McCallum (LC) responded that online updates could now be issued more frequently, since the format of record is the web version, but a definite decision has not been made. The February update was produced in support of RDA testing. If official updates move to twice a year, e.g., March and September, they might still be combined into one update each year for the printed version. Speaking on behalf of OCLC, Weitz expressed his appreciation for the timely February update.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

The proposal was presented by Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB). He explained that the German and Austrian libraries feel that ending punctuation is redundant in some cases because it may be supplied based on the type of following subfield. This proposal suggests changing the focus of Leader byte 18. Sherman Clarke (VRA) pointed out that punctuation is actually determined by the following subfield. Thus, perhaps the definition needs to be explicit about which end of the subfield the proposal is describing. Nathan Robertson (LITA) felt that there is also confusion about when punctuation will be supplied and/or required at the beginning of a subfield. John Attig (Penn State University) expressed concern that we are trying to force too many facets of information into the byte 18 codes. Sally McCallum (LC) pointed out that the new definitions tried to preserve the various facets of each value that had been described in more detail by the old (and current) definitions. While "preserving" the definitions under which records up until now have been coded, an attempt was made to narrow the emphasis from cataloging rules to ISBD and to ISBD punctuation where possible. Thomas Dukleth (Agogme) mentioned that such punctuation is supplied by UNIMARC systems.

John Attig (Penn State University) asked the Committee what is meant exactly by the term “ISBD”. This term carries many meanings. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) provided a brief definition, as he understands its use in this proposal, particularly with regard to punctuation. Codes “a” and “i” incorporate information about more than just the punctuation used, as they always have, but the proposal shifts the emphasis to the punctuation aspect of the ISBD. John Myers (Union College) cautioned that if we begin to create such codes for varying levels of information, they will begin to proliferate. John Attig (Penn State University) attempted to elucidate the various codes that would be needed. But he felt that one seemed to be missing. Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested changing the current definitions to remove or split out one or more of these levels of information. In response to the concern about legacy records, Richard Greene (OCLC) stated that such records were not necessarily coded correctly anyway. Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested taking “descriptive data” out of the first sentence of the byte definition. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) suggested that the definition of code “a” should also have mention of “access points” removed. John Attig (Penn State University) agreed that this portion of the code “a” definition may not be applicable for systems using automated authority control. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) noted that the new code “c” would need to include the definition, as given in Section 2.3. Deborah Fritz (TMQ Inc.) wondered whether code “a” was now actually obsolete. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) would prefer that it not be required to use Leader byte 18 and field 040 subfield $e in tandem. Sherman Clarke (VRA) pointed out that the definition already explained this.

Nathan Robertson (LITA) suggested that code “c” could be named something like “ISBD punctuation excluded when redundant” with a new description that only references ISBD punctuation. The code “i” caption could be changed to “ISBD punctuation included” and with the description referencing inclusion of the punctuation. He suggested that code “a” should be changed to "AACR2" (not ISBD/AACR2) and the description be changed to “Descriptive portion of the record is formulated according to the description and punctuation provisions as incorporated into the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd Edition (AACR 2) and its manuals.” Everett Allgood (CC:DA) also felt that the name of the byte would need to be changed, so as not to include the concept of access points. Several expressed their preferences for the various suggested wordings.

Nathan Robertson (LITA) moved that the wording to the definitions and names of values "c" and "i" clarify the use of the punctuation provisions of the ISBD as suggested above, leaving the information about description behind. And everything else should be changed as stated in the proposal. Renette Davis (ALCTS) seconded. The motion passed.

The discussion paper was presented by Corine Deliot (BL). ISTC distinguishes between original and derived works; this distinction has a bearing on how ISTCs are recorded in bibliographic records. In records encoded according to ONIX for Books 3.0, the ISTC for works contained in the manifestation described is coded “01”. In addition, if the work contained in the manifestation described is a derived work, the ISTC for the original work not included in the manifestation is recorded with a value of “02”. Since ISTCs may already be included in authority records, the discussion paper focuses primarily on their use in bibliographic records. Margaret Stewart (LAC) reported that the Canadian Committee on MARC preferred Option 1 but would have no objections to Option 2 since no changes are required to the format. George Prager (AALL) also expressed a preference for Option 2. John Myers (Union College) felt that Option 3 would be very undesirable because textual qualifiers are difficult to make use of during computer manipulation.

Elizabeth O’Keefe (ARLIS/NA) expressed concern with there being paired codes in all of the example records for both original and derived works, particularly for works of art. John Myers (Union College) stated that, although the current definition for ISTC would find art works out of scope, he is intrigued by such future extension for other types of identifiers. Sherman Clarke (VRA) clarified that most art catalogers would never assign an ISTC to a derivative manifestation of a work, such as a slide or reproduction.

Laura Snyder (RUSA, Chair) directed the Committee’s attention to the Questions for Discussion. Most agreed that the bibliographic record should carry ISTCs for the source work(s), and that Option 2 was preferred. John Attig (Penn State University) asked about prefixes. Corine Deliot (BL) clarified that the standard requires that the codes should always be preceded by an “istc” prefix. William Jones (New York University) wondered whether the format had already established a precedent for including such prefixes. John Attig (Penn State University) suggested using the prefix in subfield $o. Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked whether Option 2 would sufficiently identify that the code was a “01” or “02”. And he further wondered whether there would be an “03” in the future, and how it would be explicitly described. It was felt that use of the 787 already identified a relationship (i.e. code 02).

Gary Strawn (ALCTS) wondered why the Bronte manifestation example has its own ISTC, while the Shakespeare example does not. Corine Deliot (BL) explained that the difference was that the Bronte manifestation contains additional material credited to John Brown. The ISTC is a conflation of the FRBR “work” and “expression”, not “manifestation”. Stephen Hearn (SAC) asked about intermediate derivations. Corine Deliot (BL) explained that ISTC implementation is in its early days.

Corine Deliot (BL) clarified that this discussion paper will not be returning to the Committee as a proposal, since no change to the format is required. Perhaps an example of the ISTC will be incorporated into the format documentation. Sally McCallum (LC) thanked Corine Deliot (BL) for all of her hard work on the ISNI and ISTC proposals and discussion papers.

Business Meeting

Laura Snyder (RUSA, Chair) thanked Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Intern) for his excellent minutes. She reported that she has completed her term as Chair, and that Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Intern) is moving from Intern to Member representing ALCTS and will be the incoming Chair. Renette Davis (ALCTS), Joe Altimus (LITA), and Everett Allgood (CC:DA) have finished their terms on the Committee and will be rotating off. And John Myers (Union College) will be the new representative to CC:DA.